A recent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court has deemed the removal of bike lanes in Toronto unconstitutional. This decision has reignited discussions about the implications of such legal interpretations on broader public policy. The case, Cycle Toronto et al. v. Ontario, challenged the Ford government’s decision to close bike lanes on several city streets. Cycling activists argued that the closures would not alleviate traffic congestion, as the government claimed, and would significantly endanger cyclists.

Justice Paul Schabas ruled in favor of the cycling activists, stating that the removal of bike lanes would infringe upon cyclists' Section 7 Charter rights, which guarantee “life, liberty and security of the person.” He noted that evidence presented showed that cyclists would face a higher risk of injury or death on roads without separated bike lanes. The ruling emphasized the importance of expert testimony on road safety and traffic issues, suggesting a reliance on informed opinions rather than political agendas.

The decision has prompted speculation about its potential impact on other government policies. For instance, some have questioned whether Premier Doug Ford’s decision to raise speed limits on highways could also be challenged under similar reasoning, given that experts have warned that higher speed limits can lead to increased traffic fatalities.

The ruling has also led to discussions about federal policies, such as the Carney government’s stance on pharmacare expansion. Critics argue that not expanding pharmacare could harm Canadians' health, potentially infringing on their Section 7 rights. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the implications of allowing alcohol sales in grocery stores, particularly regarding youth consumption and public health.

The ruling has sparked a broader debate about judicial activism in Canada, particularly regarding the balance of power between judges and elected officials. Critics point out that judges and the experts who testify in court are not free from political biases, which can influence their decisions. This raises questions about the integrity of the expertise that judges rely on in their rulings.

The Cycle Toronto case highlights the ongoing tension in Canadian governance between expert opinion and democratic decision-making. As the implications of this ruling unfold, it may set a precedent for how similar cases are approached in the future.